LawDog listen to Miss P, she knows whatís she talking about. Iím not an expert on criminal law but I have clerked for a criminal lawyer for the last year plus. I donít know what CBís lawyers are doing or how they plan to proceed, but I have a good idea how my boss would respond. He would not come up with any farfetched defenses, why? Because that stuff rarely works in real life. Instead he would do what we normally do for our clients who have a ton of evidence against them, chip away at small parts to get the best deal.

Very rarely do we have clients who are A) completely innocent or B) think they can get away with the crimes. Most often the role of a criminal defense attorney is to explain to his client what the prosecution has to prove, and given the evidence, how likely it is they can prove it. Guilt or innocence is rarely the primary issue in criminal defense in real life, its more the factors of the evidence and the possible end results if you take this or that path. In many situations itís the wrong move to try and defend against a claim, when the odds are good they can make that claim, its better offense to play good defense and try to get that claim bounced down or a deal done.

Lastly as my boss has said to many of our high profile clients in the past, you really donít want this to go to trial because it all becomes public info then and you will get crucified in the media. Sometimes its best for your client and their rep to not challenge a crime if they can make it disappear quickly out of the lime light rather than go through a widely publicized trial.

Like, GASP! OMG, Matthies, are you saying you should worry about the best interest of your client when there might be more interesting totally off-the-wall defenses you COULD try instead?!?

Okay LawDog, as a law student one does have to remain objective, but we are also required to take a stand on issues and cases. All that happened here was that I did not take a stand in favor of Chris Brown.

I am a human being, with feelings and opinions, just like any other person in law school. Many lawyers defend clients that they know are guilty. Do you think OJ's lawyers were completely and totally objective? Do you think, deep down, they didn't feel as if they were doing something morally wrong? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but they had to put aside their personal beliefs and emotions to get the job done. If I really wanted to, or if I really had to, I could argue in favor of Chris Brown, but I don't want to, and I don't have to. You assume that I am totally and completely incapable of succeeding in law school, because you assume that I am unable to remain objective and "see a case from all angles". You are wrong, lawdog, and you have no justifiable reason to make such a judgment.

I am not a lawyer now. I am not on Chris Brown's defense team, and I do NOT HAVE TO remain objective here. I am on a message board, we all are, so...chill out. Also, I have been required to write papers on countless occasions where I had to argue in favor of a position I disagree with, and I did quite well on all of them.

It all comes down to the fact that you need to get over yourself, LawDog, because (whether you realize this or not) you speak as if you're the best thing that ever happened to the legal profession.